Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On the Firestorm Redoubt fortification, the 2 Emplaced Quad Icarus Lascannons are fully automated and cannot be manned by any unit that is occupying the building part of the fortification.

My questions is simply this - if my opponent occupies my firestorm redoubt's building, would he also change who controls the emplaced weapons?

I say no since there doesn't seem to be any things stating that the ownership of automated emplaced weapons can be change; however, I may be missing it so I figured I'd post the question.

Allow me to welcome you to the insanity that is the Fortification rules and how they interact with the rest of the rules of the game. I am at work so I will not go into my usual details, maybe even avoid triggering a mini-rant because this is one of the very sore spots that always makes my brain tick. Instead I will simply state the obvious: We do not really know, building enemy/friendly interactions are a gray area. The rules for buildings where broken well enough without the inclusion of fortifications that are able to 'self-fire,' without the finer details needed to inform us how to handle the whole enemy/friendly dynamics this situation causes.

They let the quad guns change hands on an ADL. I coule see it here as well.

Stormbreed wrote:
They let the quad guns change hands on an ADL. I coule see it here as well.

The difference here though is that the Quad Gun is a Gun Emplacement (not an emplaced gun - stupid semantics I know) and can also be manually fired. The guns on the Firestorm Redoubt explicitly cannot be manually fired and can only be fired via the fully automated rules for Emplaced Guns in the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Allow me to welcome you to the insanity that is the Fortification rules and how they interact with the rest of the rules of the game. I am at work so I will not go into my usual details, maybe even avoid triggering a mini-rant because this is one of the very sore spots that always makes my brain tick. Instead I will simply state the obvious: We do not really know, building enemy/friendly interactions are a gray area. The rules for buildings are broken well enough without the inclusion of fortifications that are able to 'self-fire.' The inclusion of this ability, without the finer details needed to inform us how to handle these sort of situations, was a mistake that can only be better corrected by the Game Workshop writers.

True.

If anything, here's to hoping the rules are better when Stronghold Assault come out tomorrow.

 Unholyllama wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
They let the quad guns change hands on an ADL. I coule see it here as well.

The difference here though is that the Quad Gun is a Gun Emplacement (not an emplaced gun - stupid semantics I know) and can only be manually fired. The guns on the Firestorm Redoubt explicitly cannot be manually fired and can only be fired via the fully automated rules for Emplaced Guns in the BRB.

Fixed the bolded statement - Quad Guns cannot autofire. Semi-irrelevant to your point, but figured it should be clarified.

HIWPI: yes, he can shoot them. Because you have to occupy a building to shoot said weapons, at a minimum you cannot shoot them. I'd use the quad-gun and common sense as my precedent there.

Ironically, you could claim that they would continue to fire at his units because "if a building is occupied, each emplaced weapon that is not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight"

Then surely the guns would turn around and fire at the people inside the building... Which is where stuff gets a little confusing x'D

 greyknight12 wrote:
HIWPI: yes, he can shoot them. Because you have to occupy a building to shoot said weapons, at a minimum you cannot shoot them. I'd use the quad-gun and common sense as my precedent there.

Ironically, you could claim that they would continue to fire at his units because "if a building is occupied, each emplaced weapon that is not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight"

Your second sentence is how I interpret the rules. The 2 guns on the Firestorm Redoubt cannot be fired manually. They always fire automatically per the rules for that fortification. Even if there is a unit inside of the building the guns still only fire automatically. So my interpretation is that even if my opponent occupies the building, the two automated guns on it will still fire only at his models - in essence the ownership of the fortification never changes regardless who occupies it.

For fortifications like an ADL, the Quad gun must fire manually and thus is fully dependent on who has a unit around the gun. Same goes with the Bastion; however, if my opponent only controlls the battlements on top, I would argue the emplaced heavy bolters that can fire both automated and manually would go back to the original own's control if firing as an automated gun.

Yea...i really hope Stronghold assault addresses these thing.